Messages

16

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D: Buy now or wait?

« on: August 09, 2012, 12:18:53 PM »

Hi all,

Just wanted some opinions and thoughts from either 7D owners or people probably in the same boat as me, who are unsure if they should upgrade to a 7D now or wait until after photokina, in case a new camera comes out?

I have a 500D now, however I've out grown it and looking for a more versatile camera.
Thanks for our comments!

If you're not shooting commercially and you dont have upcoming projects that requires a more versatile camera, then the best thing to do is wait. The only downside is that, the availability of a newly announced product may come later than sooner. Thats the only reason why I would think people would prefer to get one thats readily available in the market. But if you have huge patience... might as well wait as it usually leads to a happy ending.

What about the people that held out for a year or more waiting for a 5d3 and then couldn't afford it, or decided at that price they'd rather invest it other ways like lenses etc.

There are many downsides to waiting for the unknown.

17

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D: Buy now or wait?

« on: August 09, 2012, 11:12:20 AM »

What has history taught us?

For a year or more leading up to the 5d3 this question was the dead horse that it seemed like everybody took a whack at, of course regarding whether or not to pull the trigger on a 5d2.

5d3 comes out and you can basically get two 5d2s (Holiday season 2011 prices $1899 new) for the price of a 5d3.  Had we all known that the price difference would have been so dramatic a lot of people would have had their xmas family portraits taken on a 5d2 instead of a xxxD or been out shooting with their 5d2s instead of on the forum seeking advice.

There is no question the 5d3 is a great camera and satisfies a lot of what the 5d2 leaves to be desired.  But if you bought a 5d2 that price difference just doesnt make you feel bad about your decision. 

Will we see history repeat itself?

The main features we all like to see improvements on are and this is taking all types of photography into consideration: Resolution, Speed (fps), ISO performance, Dynamic Range, Auto Focus, weather-sealing.

Sure there are a ton of other things but, if there is a marked improvement, in any of those features that I mentioned above, over the current 7D then you may feel like you made a bad decision to buy a 7D now.  I'm not going to say that I don't think the new 7D will be a vastly improved because I definitely didn't see 61pt AF coming on the 5d3, but I also didn't see that price either.  So if we are surprised with by how great a 7D replacement spec list looks, get ready to be shocked by the price.  So, with all that said, buying a 7D especially if you are able to get it at a bargain will not be a bad move, and I don't see you regretting it.

The only point in waiting until after photokina would be to hope for another price drop on the 7D.  I've seen it as low as $1349 USD body only, its at $1449 right now.  If it gets any cheaper I'll be buying one myself. 

But obviously if money is no object go buy a 1DX and be done with it!

18

Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]

« on: July 18, 2012, 12:31:40 PM »

Everybody seems to be making a big stink about the price jumps for all the replacement lenses/cameras that canon has released recently, and the discussions of whether or not the new features/improvements are worth the added cost. 

A point I feel needs to be made is that Canon is not increasing the retail price of the equipment proportional to the additional features/improvements (which is what consumers typically look at).  They can't do that and continue to be a viable company.  The Yen's strength to the Dollar has doubled in the last 5 years, and that rate is almost as dramatic or even more-so with most of the other country's currencies that they do high volume exporting to.

So when you see the 30%-40% increase in original release MSRP of 5DmkII vs the mkIII or the 24-70L and the mkII, keep in mind that is pretty much just accounting for the currency difference between those release dates. 

So take that into consideration when you see these new price points.  Might not just be Canon being greedy.   

Other thoughts/theories:

Maybe that was a Hong Kong pricelist and this is a replacement for the 1.8

$900(you would spend on the new 1.4) + $300 for your used 1.4 and you can get yourself a used 1.2L

19

Street & City / Re: Etiquette of Street Photography

« on: January 21, 2012, 12:38:04 AM »

Anyone try these lens skins to turn their white teles black and a little more discreet?  If nothing else might make you feel more comfortable.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/832736-REG/LensSkins_LS_C70200X3FB_Lens_Skin_for_the.html

20

Lenses / Re: Going Wide on FF but which.

« on: January 20, 2012, 11:27:22 AM »

So did some cleaning of house on my lenses.

Out EF-S 10-22, 18-135, and EF 70-200 F/4L non-IS

Since I am focusing on the 5DMKII over my T2i which is now a backup body, my current stable of lenses are:

EF 24-105 F/4L
EF 50 F/1.4
EF 85 F/1.8
EF 70-200 F/2.8 IS II

Thinking down the road adding the 135 F/2, though the 70-200 is so capable, I think I can live with that to cover the range.

I still would like to do some Landscape / Architecture shots wide and have been weighing the 15 Fisheye, the 16-35 MK I or the 17-40 F/4L.  Price wise the 17-40 seems like a FF swap of the 10-22, but for the money and since it is slower glass, not sure if that is too much overlap with the 24-105. 

The 14 is obviously a sweet lens, but since this is not a need lens, and more of a creative / play lens for me, I am trying to keep the price down. 

Also debating whether I go for some more length and weight the 300 or 400, though the 2X converter might give me similar results.

I'm in the same boat, can't wait to see the replies you get.

I mentioned in another thread that I was going to get the 17-40L to cover my wide to ultrawide range on my recently purchased 5D, but that was met with plenty of lukewarm to negative responses.  Seems as though the only ultrawide zoom worthy for a FF is the 16-35L II which is twice the price, and that is actually the exact FF equivalent of the 10-22 FL on a crop.  Other recommendations were for the 24L - equivalent to 15mm on the crop...I hope you get some good replies!

21

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]

« on: January 19, 2012, 02:04:19 PM »

I wouldn't be surprised if AF was kept the same, but that wouldn't stop me from wanting to pick one up.  If it gets 2 stop improvement in ISO over the mk2, that means clean shots at 6400, and would most likely be enough for people to upgrade, however its reasonable to assume that we will also see improvements in metering/dynamic range, perhaps some other minor things.  But you definitely won't see a great AF system on a 5d body, not now, not ever....so please don't expect that.  Save up for a 1D-X 

The problem with this sort of rationalizing is that while a 5DIII with an antiquated AF system might make sense for product alignment within the Canon family, it will also be competing for market share with the Nikon D800. The D700 already crushed the 5DII in terms of AF (51 points vs. 9) and speed, but the 5DII's significant advantage in resolution was enough to win over many buyers. If Nikon comes out a D800 that maintains its AF advantage over the 5D, but then makes up for the D700's resolution shortcomings with its long rumored 36 megapixel D800, Canon runs the risk of losing market share to Nikon.

The problem with Nikon is that while the D700 "crushed" the 5dmk2 in terms of AF specs, it also crushed their own D3, which is something Canon will not do, they aren't going to over spec a 5d body to kill sales of their 1 series bodies.  And Canon seems to be doing fine when it comes to share.  Forget sales figures, because there isnt a breakdown between models...Just for comparison I went to B&H and had a look a the number of reviews for the 5dmk2 compared to the D700 (not scientific but fairly balanced way to look at it) and when you combine the reviews for the body only, and kit you get about 2100 reviews for the 5dmk2 and for the d700 there are just over 1000.  Sure its not sales figures but I would venture to guess the rate at which buyers leave reviews is not 1:1.  I dont think the d700 "crushed" anything and therefore Canon would rather have their own house in order because what they're doing works for them...share-wise and otherwise.

22

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]

« on: January 19, 2012, 10:57:50 AM »

The specs coming out of this rumor may not be eye-popping or drool inspiring...but rest assured the mk3 will dazzle with it's low-light/high ISO performance.  It's not going to be a body you grab to shoot sports, and Canon hasn't intended to be. 

Unless you're going to spend $6k-$7k for a body like the 1D-X you aren't going to get a "do-it-all" body.  If you have a sub $3500 budget, you need to buy a second body like a 7D to be able to track your moving subject and have the burst speed to not miss as many shots.  And the 7D is going to have Rebel quality ISO performance.

I wouldn't be surprised if AF was kept the same, but that wouldn't stop me from wanting to pick one up.  If it gets 2 stop improvement in ISO over the mk2, that means clean shots at 6400, and would most likely be enough for people to upgrade, however its reasonable to assume that we will also see improvements in metering/dynamic range, perhaps some other minor things.  But you definitely won't see a great AF system on a 5d body, not now, not ever....so please don't expect that.  Save up for a 1D-X 

23

Lenses / Re: 135L or 100L macro?

« on: January 12, 2012, 12:29:13 AM »

.... I've found it to be great for individual portraits and even a good travel lens when I don't want to lug my 70-200mm f2.8L around. I've attached some example photos from it.

Nice shots, Are those all at f2.8?

Wide angle zoom lens designs for a FF image circle are more difficult than telephoto zoom designs - the fact that the 70-200/4 and the 17-40/4 are close in price is consistent with the 17-40 needing more optical compromises and suffering lower IQ for them.  It has a LOT of barrel distortion, and at wide apertures, especially at the wide end, the corners are a mushy mess.  Not sure if one of the EF-S lenses you sold was the 10-22mm, but the small image circle makes a huge difference - for the same cost, the 10-22 delivers much better optical performance (rivals the 16-35 II except for the slower aperture). 

Now, the 17-40mm isn't all bad - like any piece of gear, if you know its limitations and how to work around them, you can get good results.  For example, don't shoot architecture at 17mm. Generally, if you shoot the 17-40mm at 20mm or narrower and stopped down to f/8-f/11 (e.g. landscapes from a tripod), it's fine.  If you plan to shoot at 17mm f/4 a lot, you'll likely be disappointed.  So...good as a landscape lens, not so good as a walkaround lens (for which I'd really recommend the 24-105mm, as 24mm on FF is wide enough for many needs (equivalent to 15mm on crop).  But, the best time to get the 24-105 is with the 5DII as a kit, when you pay just $800 for the lens.

Have you considered renting for your Hawaii trip, perhaps the 16-35 II?

That's some useful information to have and understand when looking to buy a wide angle for a full frame, I had never considered that the size of the sensor can contribute to that distortion on the corners, I guess shouldn't be a surprise though as vignetting is a more of an issue on FF for similar reasons.

I was hoping to take advantage of some of the rebates that now expire on Feb 7th but I might not want to rush into this, renting for my trip isn't a bad idea, as nothing is better than actually having shot with that lens to give you confidence when you click "checkout". 

As far as a walk-around lens, I do see a 24-105L in my future at some point, I noticed that the used market has been pretty well stocked with them, and most are new (parted out of a 5dmk2 kit) and thats driving the actual used ones down even further in price, so I might grab one at some point.  The new prices on those primes were the used prices a few months back, and that ridiculous sharpness and IQ of the 135L is fresh on my mind.  But the 24-105L might just be my best bet for the time being, 24 on a FF is plenty wide for a lot of shots.

24

Lenses / Re: 135L or 100L macro?

« on: January 11, 2012, 06:08:27 PM »

I took advantage of the great prices that were available for a new body and upgraded to the 5dmk2. Now I find myself with only the 50 1.4 & 70-200 f4 non-IS that actually work with my body.

I tend to use the wide range much more than tele (definitely getting the 17-40L) but recently (after renting the 135L for a week) it was so sharp it really inspired me to start shooting people i.e. portrait, and candid shots.  Never really had much of a desire to do so before, and now it's something I would like to learn and develop a much stronger skill for. 

I'm going to throw a curve ball here and suggest you don't get either of them. At least not yet. The 17-40L is a great value lens, that's a good choice. I've used mine daily for commercial work since it was announced in 2003, and I've got fussy clients. The 17-40L is a very good flexible lens.

If you're uncertain about the 100L vs 135L don't rush in. You already have an extremely good lens in your 70-200 f/4L. Don't under-rate it.

Full frame is a different experience to APS-C. Use your 5DII for a few months with the 70-200 and see what focal lengths you tend to use the most. This will inform you on whether to get the 100L or the 135L. You might be perfectly happy with the 70-200. Your upgrade money may be better spent on a 70-200 f/2.8.

While I am in the fortunate position of having a comprehensive lens set, if I could only keep two lenses they would be the 70-200 f/2.8Lis and the 17-40L. I buy new lenses to cover a clear and obvious creative or commercial need.

Paul Wright

I like your idea about having a 2nd look at the 70-200 with the 5dmk2 as I certainly haven't had a chance to put it through it's paces on the new body yet.  There are some downsides that I have considered when comparing it to the subject primes; mainly the fact that it's not as fast or discreet, the bokeh should be much nicer on the full frame as compared to what I was getting on the crop, but still not in the same league as those primes.

Your high praise of the 17-40L contradicts some other opinions here about that lens.  I thought I was going to be in good shape with it and not have to worry about the wide end, and get away with it pretty cheap at the same time. 

Lots of good feedback though on both sides of the argument, seems as though the 135L has the majority of nods.

....All depends on whether or not the extra stop and extra 35mm focal length are more important to you than the Macro and IS.

Nice way to simplify the thought process!

Decisions, decisions...thanks to everyone who knocked the 17-40L because now I need to figure out what I'm going to do about the wide FL 1st before I move on one of these 2 primes 

25

Lenses / Re: 135L or 100L macro?

« on: January 11, 2012, 04:47:36 PM »

I agree that if you like to shoot wide, the 35L and 24L are much better than the 17-40mm, although neither are ultrawide (for that, I went with the 16-35L II).  I have the 35L and it's a gret lens.

Back to your question of 100L Macro vs. 135L - I have both, and both are excellent.  As you state, the 100L does very well for portraits, and you can get decent OOF blur with f/2.8 on FF (the same as f/1.8 on your old crop body).  The 135L does focus a bit faster, so it's better for shooting action, but then, the 5DII is a handicap there.  So, in your place, I think of those two, I'd go for the 100mm L Macro first.

You also need to consider your intended uses for the lens.  If what you're looking for is a great lens for portraits, that you plan to use mostly or only for portraits, then the 135L is the best choice.  The 100L Macro is not quite as good as a portrait lens, but is a much more versatile lens overall, including the macro capability.

I was pretty happy about grabbing the 17-40 for my wide purposes but now...not so much.  Unfortunately, the alternatives are quite a bit more, like double.  My 70-200 preforms pretty well for being the cheapest L lens, figured the price reflects the lack of features mainly, and IQ to a lesser degree on an L lens, but I guess I'm mistaken about that.  With an f4 maximum aperture, lack of weather sealing, no IS etc. is why its a bargain, figured the same would be true about the 17-40.  Is it really that bad?

If that's the case I may have to postpone the purchase of the 135L/100L macro, and allocate those funds to addressing my wide range ($700 for a 17-40 isn't going to cut it apparently), since that is still the large majority of my shots, especially with a trip to Hawaii next month - wide is a must have.  I can still take portraits with my 50 but that would exclude street and candid shots.  Obviously, the 70-200 can take over for those duties however, the long gray lens isn't as discreet, f4 doesn't get you as dramatic an OOF blur even at 200mm, and as sharp as it is its not in the same league as the primes.

26

Lenses / 135L or 100L macro?

« on: January 11, 2012, 03:13:58 PM »

Like many on the forum, I took advantage of the great prices that were available for a new body and upgraded to the 5dmk2, this is my first foray into the Full-Frame universe, and it happened ahead of schedule.  I always planned to upgrade my glass first, then the body.  Now I find myself with only the 50 1.4 & 70-200 f4 non-IS that actually work with my body.  My EF-S lenses are on craigslist. 

I tend to use the wide range much more than tele (definitely getting the 17-40L) but recently (after renting the 135L for a week) it was so sharp it really inspired me to start shooting people i.e. portrait, and candid shots.  Never really had much of a desire to do so before, and now it's something I would like to learn and develop a much stronger skill for. 

So my question to anyone who has experience with both, which do I go with?  The 135L or the 100L macro?  I really loved the 135L its crazy sharp even at f2, loved it.  However, the 100L macro is enticing...IS and macro capability (macro is something I haven't tried yet, but I would like to at some point) are definitely pluses of course you lose a stop vs the 135L but you get 4 back with the hybrid IS.  I've seen some portraits with the 100L macro and they were quite sharp.  So I'm torn, I'm sure many are going to recommend that I rent the 100L macro and then make the decision, which is logical and I may end up doing that, but am interested to get some feedback from the forum.

Oh...and as far as price goes, it's negligible, 135L is $924 and the 100L macro is $886 which is a difference of only $38.

27

United States / Re: EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 or EF 16-35 f/2.8L

« on: November 04, 2011, 05:43:54 PM »

advantages of 17-55 over 16-35L:
-extra 20mm of reach
-Has IS
-$450 cheaper
-Optimized for your crop body

I can't think of a single advantage of going with the 16-35, they are both just as fast, and the 17-55 is widely considered the best walk around lens for a crop, and if it weren't for a lack of weather sealing, and EF-S mount it would be an "L" the glass is that good.  Resale on the 17-55 is great, so you won't have that cash tied up for long when/if you do decide to go FF.

There are a lot of topics on 17-40L vs 17-55, and this might even make less sense considering that the 16-35L costs 33% more, where at least the 17-40L was saving people a few bucks.

Worry about FF when you have the body.  Right now you just bought a 60D, I would get the 17-55 and use the extra $450 to get yourself a nice prime, maybe the 50 1.4

28

EOS Bodies / Re: New DSLR on Tuesday, October 18, 2011. [CR3]

« on: October 13, 2011, 12:19:57 PM »

Something has to be inaccurate with those specs...

As many have already mentioned if the new camera has 16-18MP I'd be very surprised if it were to end up being a 1 series camera.

The rest of the spec list seems 1 series worthy (ISO, AF..)

So something has to give, either the MP spec is off, or the the rumor of the camera is confirmed and the specs are a big reach. 

There have been a lot of rumors over the past 3 months or so stating we aren't going to see a new DSLR announcement this year, and before that there was talk of a new 1D, 1Ds, 5D or even a new 6D.

I'd say this could be anything I wouldn't bank on a 1D especially considering the spec list just isn't plausible.  Canon isn't getting out of the megapixel race, and deep down we all know that.

29

Canon General / Re: Photography - Equipment or Skill ?

« on: October 03, 2011, 10:57:21 AM »

Check out this discussion....

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,1747.0.html

30

EOS Bodies / Re: Shooting in manual

« on: October 01, 2011, 01:16:45 PM »

Lots of good responses, much appreciated. 

Seems to be the most common situations are either; while using a flash, for consistency when shooting in a fixed environment, or when you have a background consisting of a mix of highlights and shadows that might fool the metering system.

I wouldn't say that I'm afraid of using "M", but since I didn't start off using it, its more time consuming for me to get to the proper exposure than either in "Av" or "Tv".  I was really trying to find a reason to use it more than anything, so I'll pay attention to whenever I come across these situations in the future.

It also came to mind that when using a zoom, which I typically do, using AE lock can can solve the problem of the "confusing" backgrounds, by zooming on the subject and locking the exposure, then zooming out and recomposing the shot (if you don't have a moving subject and can zoom enough to frame the subject only).  Obviously this may be difficult/impossible when using a prime without the luxury of framing the subject to expose it properly.  However, using the zoom/lock technique may take more time than just correcting the exposure in manual, I guess however you can get to the proper exposure quickest would be the way to go.  Just thinking that using a prime might necessitate "M" more frequently given this same set of circumstances.